Main reason for seeing 'multiculturalism' as a failure

[BuckeyeJim]

So um, is the existence of conservative and patriarchal Catholics and Protestants a failure of multiculturalism, then? Is entrenched and sometimes isolationist Mormonism in Utah a monument to the failure of American multiculturalism?

I'm just not seeing how migrants with conservative values is any special threat or failure or whatever. I mean this:



...is actually just a fancy re-articulation of the "they stay in their ghettos and don't mix with outsiders" argument. The problem with that is that it's a deeply unsympathetic and ignorant attitude to take to new arrivals (leverything else has just changed, of course people want some connection to what they're familiar with). And in the long term, it doesn't match at all with the actual cross-generational experience of largescale migration in places where we've been doing it for a while, and had the multicultural policies and pluralist attitudes in place to allow such hybridisation to take its natural course.

But also. This is important right here: Of course people's communities and social networks exercise influence over them. Of course patriarchy and conservatism can have pernicious influences. But, like, in liberal societies people are entitled to their views, they're entitled to express them to others, and they're entitled to very wide autonomy in ordering their family affairs. That's a pretty basic tenet which I can't see how opponents of multiculturalism aren't simply rejecting when applied to migrants as opposed to locally-born citizens. I can't imagine how you could ever cause people to not be influenced by their cultural and familial surroundings, wherever they are.

But like, in an open society, that influence it's not monopolistic. That's the entire point of multiculturalism - once you have different groups in the same place, stuff mixes and cross-pollinates, kids get exposed to all sorts of influences. All cultures involved change, diversify, re-combine, and so forth.

As an example: I've got friends whose backgrounds are, variously, Greek, Lebanese, Vietnamese or Chinese. Most of their parents are conservative, very protective, with very traditional ideas about gender roles. But, firstly, every individual involved is all still part of society and entitled to their views. And probably more importantly, their kids have grown up in a wide variety of ways despite that conservative and patriarchal cultural influence (from evangelical creationist Christian accountaint, to flamboyantly gay human rights worker). They all negotiate the different elements of their culture and identity in different ways, exercising individual autonomy. Kind of what liberal societies is all about.

Cultural influence is not determinant, and the law is there setting limits to patriarchy and conservatism just as it does with locally-born patriarchs and conservatives. After all, even the daughters of religious parents have to go to school til they're 16 or 18, even the wives of religious men get to vote (are required to vote, here) move around freely, drive, etcetera, and domestic violence is still a crime when done by religious people.

Edit: Oh and just as an example of the way attitudes change, here's at least one poll of British-born Muslims (one of those "problem" communities, apparnetly), with some interesting results which at the very least contradict all the silliness the Daily Mail prints: British Muslim poll

Hi, I think you're purposefully misrepresenting people's arguments. I went to school for communications and I think you're communicating in a poor fashion to those who oppose your viewpoint.

Nobody here is set against immigration. Nobody is saying that we need to close borders. They are saying that some cultures lie in contradistinction to western values and that the existence of these cultures is undermining our traditional western values. I'm am not inclined to find any value in your survey that has no source any more than I find value in the DailyMail. But I do find value in other surveys that have been conducted by reputable sources such as CBS, that clearly show there is a problem.

Your insistence that the issue is due to government policies may be true, but it would be difficult to prove that as Australia draws from a different immigrant pool than the UK, US, France, or Germany. They draw immigrants from different societies, with different exposures, and emigrate to nations with different expectations. Your opponents are merely pointing out that the policies of Britain and other nations have opened the door to people having values that contradict our own. There are significant populations within these countries that would love to see our western values removed, and their values imposed upon the populations of these nations. They have willfully emigrated to these nations with no intention whatsoever of being a part of the society they are joining. They want to destroy it, they view their religion before the nation, they support violence, and support traditions that violate our own civic laws.

Multi-culturalism has limits. To an extent you acknowledge this. We cannot allow cultures that value violence to enter our society. We cannot incorporate people into our nations that seek to undermine our laws and values. We cannot incorporate whole sections of cities that will religiously advocate for abuse against women or girls. We cannot advocate cultures that mutilate the genitals of their young girls.

These are very real problems that some European nations face. Changing your temporary work visas won't change these problems. Nor will social programs or more assistance. These people have been indoctrinated. They are ideological. They are ingrained. And they are many. They are so predominate that they open their own schools, and have such far embracing reach that they isolate their children from western society. They will willfully pursue this course as it is ingrained in their personal beliefs and their ethos. It is a mantra.

I agree that there will always be a tendency towards assimilation with generations down the line. But this does not address the very real problems that exist today. Antagonism and antipathy from native populations doesn't help the situation, but even if the populace was like Australia or Canada, you would still have the problems because you cannot alter the mentality of those who trend towards extremism. This includes natives and immigrants.

Different immigrant groups adapt to the nations they move to differently. If the goal is to make a living and provide opportunity for their children, then there will be no problems. If the stated goal is to explicitly undermine the western society they join, then that this is a terrible problem that cannot be solved by any of your approaches.

Import 7 million Somali's, Yemini's, or Wahhabi Saudi's into Australia. Give them free reign. Give them handouts. And let me know how this works out for you.

Muslims and Palestinians are not population bombing the area around Israel because of a desire to assimilate with people who are different than them. The same is true for many Muslims in many European nations. They have no desire to be anything other than what they are. And as you admit, they will do everything they can to exert and dominate the children and extend the line of intolerance down the line.

It is not crime that concerns me. And I do not think it is a primary concern of those who oppose your view either. The larger concern is immigrant cultural beliefs that directly oppose the most fundamental aspects of western values. Like not killing people or supporting violence along religious lines, beating your wife, and cutting the clitoris' off of your little girls. And I know this because I minored in international studies at college.

 

[Japanrocks12]

And I know this because I minored in international studies at college.

A+++ would read again.

 

[Arwon]

That bit was gold (incidentally, my degree is a Bachelor of International Studies, so check MATE, dude!) but I think my favourite bit is this:

There are significant populations within these countries that would love to see our western values removed, and their values imposed upon the populations of these nations. They have willfully emigrated to these nations with no intention whatsoever of being a part of the society they are joining. They want to destroy it, they view their religion before the nation, they support violence, and support traditions that violate our own civic laws.

These people have been indoctrinated. They are ideological. They are ingrained. And they are many. They are so predominate that they open their own schools, and have such far embracing reach that they isolate their children from western society. They will willfully pursue this course as it is ingrained in their personal beliefs and their ethos. It is a mantra.

Which ones are "these people"? Can you show me a survey or something? Seriously, this is Stormfront level "Eurabia" ranting.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

Stormfront? No. Let's only talk about reputable sources.

Female Genital Mutilation:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jul/25/female-circumcision-children-british-law
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/femalecircumcision/femalecirc_1.shtml
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2549952/pdf/bmj00597-0050.pdf

Advocacy or support violence and Shariah Law

Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.

Half of those who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/14/opinion/main1893879.shtml

Around a third of young British Muslims favour killing in the name of Islam, according to a survey revealed by the WikiLeaks’ publication of U.S. diplomatic cables.

A survey of 600 Muslim students at 30 universities throughout Britain found that 32 per cent of Muslim respondents believed killing in the name of religion is justified.

A U.S. diplomatic cable from January 2009 quoted a poll by the Centre for Social Cohesion as saying 54 per cent wanted a Muslim party to represent their world view in Parliament and 40 per cent want Muslims in the UK to be under Sharia law.

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/12/the_latest_wiki.php

http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf

I am not saying that Muslims are bad, or that we shouldn't allow them to immigrate here. I am saying that there is a significant portion that we've allowed into our country who are indoctrinated, extremist, and actively participating in activities and a way of life that violates our laws and targets/undermines our system of laws and values. This is the boundary that cannot be crossed. This is where the line must be drawn in the sand. It's foolish to pretend that it doesn't exist or that we can do something about it with money.

 

[Arwon]

I'm really not sure the Democracy Institute and the National Review Online are particularly reputable sources (that's where the CBS article is sourced from). The former is a CATO-linked think-tank, the latter is right wing American gutter press. I found his GFK NOP source poll for Channel 4 and what he claims in that article isn't in the data at all. I can only assume it's come filtered confusingly through the Daily Mail or something similar.

I'm trying to trace down some the other actual survey data, but all I'm finding is a nesting of one article sourcing another sourcing another sourcing another. Very convenient really, since it stops us from ever actually checking any data.

Personally I prefer this one done in an area of the UK which the British tabloids have described as a "no go area" which shows British-born Muslim views, demonstrating healthy integration as always occurs with second generation migrants.

Now, I would like for you to describe for me one non-illegal act which "targets/undermines our system of laws and values". Nothing of what you're saying is anything to do with multiculturalism, defined repeatedly and explicitly as respect for different cultures within the rights-based legal bounds of the established society.

You're talking about criminal matters which nobody thinks should be allowed due to multicultural sensitivities. Mumbling about terrorism and FGM is a total strawman, in other words. Those have always been well outside the scope of a multicultural western society.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

I'm really not sure the Democracy Institute and the National Review Online are particularly reputable sources (that's where the CBS article is sourced from). The former is a CATO-linked think-tank, the latter is right wing American gutter press. I found his GFK NOP source poll for Channel 4 and what he claims in that article isn't in the data at all. I can only assume it's come filtered confusingly through the Daily Mail or something similar.

I'm trying to trace down some the other actual survey data, but all I'm finding is a nesting of one article sourcing another sourcing another sourcing another. Very convenient really, since it stops us from ever actually checking any data.

Personally I prefer this one done in an area of the UK which the British tabloids have described as a "no go area" which shows British-born Muslim views, demonstrating healthy integration as always occurs with second generation migrants.

Now, I would like for you to describe for me one non-illegal act which "targets/undermines our system of laws and values". Nothing of what you're saying is anything to do with multiculturalism, defined repeatedly and explicitly as respect for different cultures within the rights-based legal bounds of the established society.

You're talking about criminal matters which nobody thinks should be allowed due to multicultural sensitivities. Mumbling about terrorism and FGM is a total strawman, in other words. Those have always been well outside the scope of a multicultural western society.

First, I cannot find where your source comes from at all. It comes from wordpress. There is no methodology, no nothing. It could just be a bunch of numbers pulled out from thin air. I have to take your word for it which is even worse than sourcing a study by NRO or the Daily Mail which you can trace methodology to. Furthermore, in examining only British Born Muslims you immediately add bias that ignores Muslims that have directly immigrated into Britain. This is going to be the source of the majority of the problems associated with multiculturalist social policies. I'm more interested in the Pew research study, or the diplomatic cables that have been officially communicated, which shows there is a significant population that stands in contradistinction to common western liberal democratic society. I'm also interested in the wide spread prevalence of female genital mutilation which is a complete and total tragedy and a great example of the failures that multiculturalism can lead to in a liberal western democracy.

Female Genital mutilation undermines or civic laws, basic human rights, and values. Advocating violence against another group because of race or religion undermines western values. Funding terrorism is against our laws and undermines our values system. Spousal abuse and spousal rape is against our laws and system of values. But we've imported people who strongly believe in Shariah law who participate in this sort of activity despite our laws. They don't believe in our laws. They are defied in these extremist communities.

I think you're either exceptionally naive, or being willfully ignorant when you say that multiculturalism doesn't explicitly lead to this. These groups observe a culture that is significantly different than ours. They follow different customs, different beliefs, and even believe in a completely different system of laws and government. They place their religion above all else, and some tenants of the explicit religion do not adhere to traditional western norms or common law. When you have a government policy that explicitly encourages respect for different cultures you will inevitably absorb cultures that contradict your own. It is a simple case of quid pro quo. You want a completely multi-cultural society, then you will see a proliferation actions that defy your pre-existing rights based society. You will get FGM. You will get financing of terrorism. You will get people who advocate the murder of those who differ from them. You will get terrorism if the beliefs are strongly opposed to the pre-existing system.

It is undeniable that extremism in the Muslim world is extremely wide spread. When you place no bounds on the people you allow to immigrate to your nation it does not require much thought to conclude that you're going to incorporate extremists specifically due to your immigration policy.

And no, it's not a strawman, the significant prevalence of these traits within a society is what leads people to see multiculturalism as a failure in the first place. What's a strawman is pretending that I believe that you and others advocate the criminal actions on the grounds of multiculturalism that are taking place. And as a communications major who went to Ohio State and studied these matters for four years, I can tell you that I never did such a thing and never would as it would cloud my ability to accurately communicate with you. My argument is very simple. Blind, non-discriminatory multicultural attitudes will inevitably lead to the coagulation of sub-societies that will defy your cultural norms. Particularly when you support them in a generous manner compared to the world they leave behind.

 

[Arwon]

You think multiculturalism "explicitly leads to" FGM and I'm "naive" to think otherwise? Uh, no. Bugger off. Wide spread prevalence? Um. There's women who experienced it elsewhere, and there's anecodtal evidence of it occuring in-country, and I recognise that in practice it's difficult to stop since it's such a private affair... but there's laws against it in any given country in the West and it's not like it's at all condoned, and resources are spent attempting to stop it. I find it offensive that you think "multiculturalism" in any way condones FGM. That's just stupid.

Look man, if there were serious numbers of mulsims in Western countries committed to violence, terrorism and imposing their will on others, or doing any of the other things idiots accuse them of, we wouldn't have to run polls in order to find out about it. They'd be out there, you know, doing it. Committing acts, getting arrested, attacking the good non-muslim people of these countries. Guess what? They kind of aren't. The threat is so insanely exaggerated it's laughable. Stop being such a scaredy-cat and man up.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

You think multiculturalism "explicitly leads to" FGM? Uh, no. Bugger off.

No. Now you are purposefully distorting my words and it is extremely rude.

Multiculturalism most certainly does NOT lead to FGM. The idea that having a multiculturalist policy will somehow encourage FGM to proliferate in a society would be offensive to me. This is not what I said.

What I am saying is that when you have a non-discriminatory policy towards immigration that you will import people who reside in cultures where FGM is a dominate fact of life. They will not reject their culture simply because they are in the UK, US, or France. Rather, they will export it from their home nation to the place where they immigrate to, and continue to mutilation of their daughters. This is what you see in the articles I posted. If we were discriminatory about who we allow to enter our country we could drastically cut down on this sort of behavior. But you cannot do that with the kind of multiculturalist policies you advocate.

FGM does not grow in numbers because pre-existing citizens decide to adopt another countries culture. It grows in numbers because your policy allows for the immigration of people who mutilate their daughters in defiance of our laws and values.

Please do not willfully distort my commentary.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

It is undeniable that extremism in the Muslim world is extremely wide spread.

 

[JollyRoger]

Please do not willfully distort my commentary.

That's what we do in this culture. Please adapt before your post count hits double digits.

 

[Arwon]

No. Now you are purposefully distorting my words and it is extremely rude.

Multiculturalism most certainly does NOT lead to FGM. The idea that having a multiculturalist policy will somehow encourage FGM to proliferate in a society would be offensive to me. This is not what I said.

What I am saying is that when you have a non-discriminatory policy towards immigration that you will import people who reside in cultures where FGM is a dominate fact of life. They will not reject their culture simply because they are in the UK, US, or France. Rather, they will export it from their home nation to the place where they immigrate to, and continue to mutilation of their daughters. This is what you see in the articles I posted. If we were discriminatory about who we allow to enter our country we could drastically cut down on this sort of behavior. But you cannot do that with the kind of multiculturalist policies you advocate.

FGM does not grow in numbers because pre-existing citizens decide to adopt another countries culture. It grows in numbers because your policy allows for the immigration of people who mutilate their daughters in defiance of our laws and values.

Please do not willfully distort my commentary.

So what's your problem then?

You want to ban migration by people from certain countries (including refugees)? Great. Awesome idea. We tried that in Australia, it was called the White Australia Policy. Kind of a shameful aspect of our history. No thanks.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

There is nothing funny about that.

Look at Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Tunisia, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc.

Islamism is proliferating in these nations and not going away any time soon. What percentage of Muslims in the world do you believe we need for Islamic extremism to be a widespread problem? How many terrorist attacks do we need before it's a widespread problem? How many thousands of young girls need to be mutilated before it becomes a widespread problem? How many dollars must be funneled from western nations into terrorist organizations before it's a widespread problem? Again, either naivety or willful ignorance.

 

[Arwon]

If 1% of muslims were bent on the violent destruction of the West, that would be ten million.

Wonder what ten million such people could achieve. Hell of an army.

Also, you know FGM is a cultural, pre-Islamic practice which also occurs in Christian societies (and even among Ethiopian Jews), right?

 

[Mr. Dictator]

There is nothing funny about that.

Look at Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Tunisia, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc.

Islamism is proliferating in these nations and not going away any time soon. What percentage of Muslims in the world do you believe we need for Islamic extremism to be a widespread problem? How many terrorist attacks do we need before it's a widespread problem? How many thousands of young girls need to be mutilated before it becomes a widespread problem? How many dollars must be funneled from western nations into terrorist organizations before it's a widespread problem? Again, either naivety or willful ignorance.

Yup, that about sums it up right there.

 

[JollyRoger]

Look at Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, Tunisia, Somalia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq,

Link to video.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

So what's your problem then?

You want to ban migration by people from certain countries (including refugees)? Great. Awesome idea. We tried that in Australia, it was called the White Australia Policy. Kind of a shameful aspect of our history. No thanks.

I'm not advocating any particular policy. Merely pointing out that there are objective failures with multi-cultural policy and that the problems that exist are a direct result of those multi-cultural policies.

If you want to import Somali's and Somali refugees be my guest. But as a resident of the Columbus area, I will tell you that you had best be prepared to endure their actions that will undermine your western liberal values and their unwillingness to assimilate. And by extension you need to acknowledge these actions as a failure, or at least a shortcoming of your policy and recognize that it can lead to direct physical harm of your citizens and the undermining of your way of life.

 

[BuckeyeJim]

If 1% of muslims were bent on the violent destruction of the West, that would be ten million.

Wonder what ten million such people could achieve. Hell of an army.

Also, you know FGM is a cultural, pre-Islamic practice which also occurs in Christian societies (and even among Ethiopian Jews), right?

You're right. It would be a hell of an Army. Especially if you dispersed them into western cultures using their own policies against them.

Yes, I do know that FGM is cultural and not religious. I am well aware that many animist and Christian societies in Africa practice FGM. And we should treat them no different than we do Islamic cultures that practice FGM.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you want to import Somali's and Somali refugees be my guest.

How can it be any worse than taking in the Irish?

 

[Arwon]

I'm not advocating any particular policy. Merely pointing out that there are objective failures with multi-cultural policy and that the problems that exist are a direct result of those multi-cultural policies.

If you want to import Somali's and Somali refugees be my guest. But as a resident of the Columbus area, I will tell you that you had best be prepared to endure their actions that will undermine your western liberal values and their unwillingness to assimilate. And by extension you need to acknowledge these actions as a failure, or at least a shortcoming of your policy and recognize that it can lead to direct physical harm of your citizens and the undermining of your way of life.

Because, unlike all previous migrant and refugee groups, these people are special and dangerous and they and their kids will never change?

Right.

You're right. It would be a hell of an Army. Especially if you dispersed them into western cultures using their own policies against them.

Yes, I do know that FGM is cultural and not religious. I am well aware that many animist and Christian societies in Africa practice FGM. And we should treat them no different than we do Islamic cultures that practice FGM.

But HOW DO WE FIGHT THIS ARMY OF MILLIONS! Please tell me, they out number us ever so badly! I'm certainly not more afraid of the sort of things our own government and people are doing, and will do, to fight off this not-at-all-exaggerated threat! No sir!

 

[Mr. Dictator]

You're right. It would be a hell of an Army. Especially if you dispersed them into western cultures using their own policies against them.

Are you implying there's a coordinated invasion of the "Western" world by extremists?

Do they have terror babies too?